"There are plenty of articles on Columbia prior to the US Open and they all acknowledge Travis's work. No doubt Harban was actively involved in many aspects as well...from what I understand he was one of the top experts on grass, but to say he was the true designer (and not Travis...or Barker, for that matter, in the first go round) is not supported by the facts."
Tom MacW:
I hope Columbia or Bob Walton has all those 'plenty of articles on Columbia prior to the US Open acknowledging Travis's work'. If not maybe you could point out which ones they are. If only for the purposes of research, the club, Walton and a number of others would like to pin down as much as possible about who did exactly what and when on that golf course.
In Golf Illustrated's July 1921 article which is the same month as the 1921 US Open at Columbia, it's mentioned in a very comprehensive article, by I. Lewis Brown, complete with numerous photographs of the course just prior to the Open that Columbia stands as a monument to Harban's ten year work on the course and his extensive study of golf course architecture, plus his own ingenuity in putting his own ideas into practice.
The article also makes special mention of the uniquely radical bunker and hummock field that completely covers a stretch of the 5th hole. Special mention is made in the article of that particular feature on the course for the obvious reason that it is so unique and radical and apparently penal. It says in no uncertain terms that that architectural features is ONE of Harban's ideas. There's no question, looking at the photos of it that it certainly was radical in extent as well as in aesthetics.
Do you assume that that feature at Columbia is the only one Harban was responsible for (not that you were even aware of that until now), because, as you say, he was not a "true designer"?
Tom, what is a "true designer" in your mind? Are you under some presumption that a "true designer" had to be certified or accredited in some way, particularly back then?
If you are I think you've been missing a fairly large and important part of the evolution and history of golf course architecture and design, particularly back in that era, and particularly in America, pre-teens and into the 1920s.
Of course, I'm speaking of the extremely interesting subject of the so-called "amateur" architect, particularly back then---the likes of Leeds, Wilson, Crump, Fownes, Thomas, Behr, Jones, and now apparently Harban too.
Are you under the impression that those men felt they could not or should not practice the art of design and architecture because someone might think they were not "true" designers or because they felt or should feel that they didn't understand it and therefore shouldn't attempt it?
If you actually think that, which it seems you do, and not just this time but on numerous occasions, I'm afraid you are both missing and completely failing to understand one of the most interesting eras and aspects of the history and evolution of golf course architecture.
Yes, Harban, most certainly was considered to be one of the handful of top agronomic researchers and experts in early American agronomy, along with the Wilsons of Merion, Macdonald, and a handful of others like them around the country in conjunction with the likes of Piper and Oakley and Toomey and Flynn et al.
But it appears from this particular article in Golf Illustrated (along with the likes of Wilson of Merion, Crump of PV, Fownes of Oakmont, Leeds of Myopia, Macdonald of NGLA) that he was more than just that---that he was also very much into golf architecture, conceptual and otherwise and golf course design.
To attempt to deny that, in my opinion, would be just another example of revisionism of the facts of the history and evolution of golf course architecture.